Ok Let's Talk About It...pierced Ears And Tattoos?

May 30, 2013
1,022
166
63
North America
I do think that it's a plausible situation, but I would also note that if the city dweller with the tattoos were to visit the rural church, they would be advised to cover her tattoos in respect rather than make it a point of pride to fight for her "right" to display them. She may not be wrong to have them, or even show them, but I would place it on the same level that Paul talked about with regards to eating unclean animals in the presence of those that considered such practice to be sin.
Yes, good point also. It's good not to cause offence somehow, if the person thinks s/he might. Like you say, it might in some circumstances be a good idea to cover them; not a matter of right or wrong, but sensible and respectful, maybe.

The converse is true also; if the 55-year old lady from a rural Baptist church were to go to a city where a contemporary of hers was in a church with short sleeves with some of her ink visible, then she wouldn't necessarily expect her own notions to apply to the city dwellers'.

Blessings.
 

Banarenth

Sr Mod/Webmaster
Staff member
Senior Moderator
Oct 25, 2006
4,644
359
64
Orange City
Yes, it would go both ways IMO. I think the law of love applies to both situations. I've covered mine up from time to time, which is a bit difficult because mine go down to my wrists and I live in Florida where long sleeves are 1) uncomfortable 2) everyone knows they are uncomfortable 3) therefore everyone knows you are covering them up. It almost feels like a very silly game of make believe at times, but sometimes it's better for me to be uncomfortable than to rest that discomfort on others.
 
May 30, 2013
1,022
166
63
North America
Yes, it would go both ways IMO. I think the law of love applies to both situations. I've covered mine up from time to time, which is a bit difficult because mine go down to my wrists and I live in Florida where long sleeves are 1) uncomfortable 2) everyone knows they are uncomfortable 3) therefore everyone knows you are covering them up. It almost feels like a very silly game of make believe at times, but sometimes it's better for me to be uncomfortable than to rest that discomfort on others.
Banarenth: I can see what you mean, yes. From another perspective, and to follow the example re. a 55 year old big city dwelling woman, similarly: 1) many women get tattoos; 2) everyone knows many city-dwelling women get tattoos, and so forth. But like you say in certain situations, erring on the side of caution might be appropriate. Blessings.
 
Aug 12, 2012
728
116
43
66
Calgary, AB.
I do think that it's a plausible situation, but I would also note that if the city dweller with the tattoos were to visit the rural church, they would be advised to cover her tattoos in respect rather than make it a point of pride to fight for her "right" to display them. She may not be wrong to have them, or even show them, but I would place it on the same level that Paul talked about with regards to eating unclean animals in the presence of those that considered such practice to be sin.

If anyone watches the NBA, they will see some players wearing long spandex sleeves on one or both of their arms. That is to cover up offensive tattoos for some based on the NBA rules. Some also wear it as an accessory on their shooting arm to help absorb sweat and keep their arms warm.
 
May 30, 2013
1,022
166
63
North America
I see that the OP started the thread linking tattoos with pierced ears.

It's maybe a good comparison.

For example, double ear piercing has for decades been well established as a widespread custom among women, especially. Often mothers and daughters will have it done together, or influence each other in having it done, anyway.

Since the late 1970s, it has been an increasingly widespread custom.

For example a woman who became double pierced aged in her mid 20s in 1979, together with her mother in her mid 50s, may now be aged about 60 and 90 respectively, and they may well continue to wear multiple pairs of earrings in their double holes.

I think tattoos may well soon be in a similar category for women as well as men. While for women to get them as a really widespread custom is more recent that for men to get them, it has now become so thorougly established as a custom in North America that the ankle/foot or shoulder/arm/wrist tattoo may soon be regarded simply as double pierced ears are already: as a not unusual and very widepread personal enhancement and style preference.

That being said, I think that Christian women as well as men are likely increasingly to consider the effectiveness of faith based designs in witness, such as the Christian fish symbol, <><, or a Bible ref., or short quote, etc.

Blessings.
 
May 30, 2013
1,022
166
63
North America
...I would also note that if the city dweller with the tattoos were to visit the rural church, they would be advised to cover her tattoos in respect rather than make it a point of pride to fight for her "right" to display them. ...
Banarenth:

Yes, in some circumstances, like in an environment where she might think some Christians are not accustomed to seeing women with tattoos, a matter-of-fact modesty might be a good stance, like, if the subject arises: 'Yeah, I have tattoos, but I don't always show them. Wanna see them?'

Blessings.
 
May 30, 2013
1,022
166
63
North America
I would imagine their are some that are still convicted about it. If so then it obviously isn't for them. Personally, I do not have any tat's (yet) but do not see an issue with it in most cases.
christianvolume: Seems to me that pierced ears and tattoos are rather in a similar category, really. Like 25 -30 years ago, when many women were adapting to the practice of getting ears double/triple pierced, maybe some folk back then thought they had an 'issue' with them, but whatever the 'issue' was it seems to have petered out and Godly Christian women who happen to have doubles aren't regarded as anything but normal.

I guess sooner or later, tatts may be in the same sort of category. Personally I don't see how, for example, a Christian fish sign <>< on a wrist, etc. is supposedly a 'threat' to anyone's sensibilities.

If this makes any sense?

Blessings.